What is Digg?145 Comments
- laughtears, on 07/17/2009, -1/+351would any right-minded news website really turn away google traffic?
- Delphium226, on 07/17/2009, -5/+267Welcome to the internets, leave your old ways behind or die.
- DangerCollie, on 07/17/2009, -2/+243Translation: Go ahead newspaper punks, make my day.
Block Google and watch your online traffic go through the floor. Corporate whiners are the worst of them all. - dirtypenguin, on 07/16/2009, -4/+185 <meta name="robots" content="noindex" />
Suck it, Zell. - MrAwesomeMan, on 07/17/2009, -3/+161Are the newspaper owners retarded? Why would they not want to be found by search engines?
- shadows83, on 07/17/2009, -1/+92newspaper owners want money from google for sending them reader which provide newpapers with ad money
AFAIK, a mediator takes money from both side, not give it to one side.
Google should start charging them for sending visitors/customers. - allfatherblack, on 07/17/2009, -1/+85Clearly not. These bitches (and I do feel that is the best word to use here) just wanna whine about their cake while eating it too.
- sarcasteak, on 07/17/2009, -2/+80Another case where the people accusing google of something have no idea how the technology actually works. Google doesn't make money from referring anyone to their website based on the content that it crawls. Google is doing their website a great service by finding them people that may be interested in their site.
Google only(as far as their base search engine goes) makes money on ads that are clicked on that are displayed on the side, and these are usually based on keywords that may not be directly related to the content. So the if the newspapers really want to get bitchy then they should PAY google for being in their index. - Rankao, on 07/17/2009, -1/+72Sam Zell, whose Tribune Co. owns the Los Angeles Times, has said much the same thing, if only in more colorful terms. "If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?" he told a group of incredulous Stanford University students in 2007.
Still Ridiculously profitable. Google would not care one bit if they did that. They make their money from Tracking me everywhere I go and trying to sell ads to me base on that information. - KevenM, on 07/17/2009, -0/+56Immediately cease printing online editions and go back to the old model of selling newspapers.
Problem Solved.
You can't join a game halfway in and ask that the rules be changed for you because you don't like it. - ObeseSnake, on 07/17/2009, -0/+55Upper level management doesn't know how their business works or should work on the internet. Remember, they are printing yesterday's news and in many cases, hand delivering it to people's houses. Seems kinda quaint doesn't it?
- dalittle, on 07/17/2009, -0/+43I have no sympathy for the newspapers. If you are trying to prop up a failed business model it is nobody's problem, but yours.
- MonkeyOverlord, on 07/17/2009, -0/+41The newspapers aren't that stupid. They are just trying to convince the public that Google is directly profiting off their work as opposed to providing its own valuable service which is aimed at finding intellectual property rather than giving access to it.
What they are asking for is akin to builders demanding that real estate agents give them a cut of their commission on the grounds that real estate agents are profiting off their work rather than providing a different service related to the builders' work. - inactive, on 07/17/2009, -0/+34Why is that unfortunate? Survival of the fittest if you ask me.
- NeoCortex, on 07/17/2009, -2/+34ironic? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- leto78, on 07/17/2009, -1/+32I think that Google should stop indexing any newspaper that accuses Google from stealing content.
It is as easy as that!
It would be interesting to see how a site would become irrelevant in 24 hours. - RagManX, on 07/17/2009, -0/+31You know, that's really the thing I never understood from the newspaper big-wigs' whining. Google is sending them readers for free, and gives them a way to stop Google from indexing anything. Do these people really not understand how to make their sites work how they want given how Google operates in the presence of robots.txt?
I keep waiting for someone within Google to say "You know what - we're not changing, but we will start charging you for all the traffic you are getting to your page which hosts advertising." I know it won't happen, but I'm having trouble seeing the non-Google side of this spat. - pcpimpster, on 07/17/2009, -0/+29How is Google stealing content when it links directly to the article? Paid subscriptions should be secure enough to not get indexed in the first place, even outside of the simple noindex inclusion. Any newspaper that agrees with the Hamburg Declaration is out of touch. This misunderstanding of the internet is why many newspapers are failing miserably in the digital age. Go figure... blame the delivery system because you don't understand it is an outlet to a wider audience and not a competitor.
- dalittle, on 07/17/2009, -1/+30business is not a charity. If your business model does not work it is your problem, not everyone elses.
- allfatherblack, on 07/17/2009, -3/+29Unfortunately, quite a few have decided to die... :/
- charm803, on 07/17/2009, -1/+25"but these sites slowly degrade newspaper ad revenue."
I worked in advertising a few years ago, and I can tell you, if the newspaper can't sell ads by telling prospects that they are getting more hits, then the newspapers are doing it wrong!
Why wouldn't they use it as a selling point?
"Our site is number 1 on search engines!"
In the end, the site gets MORE hits, so I don't know what you're talking about. That is the very reason they should have no problem selling ads. - sarcasteak, on 07/17/2009, -1/+23Hai i'm kodak, what r digital cameras?
- 13373h4X0r, on 07/17/2009, -9/+30Newspapers doing something ironic in 3, 2, 1...
- quaunaut, on 07/17/2009, -0/+18That was the one I just couldn't understand. He's the owner of a business and he can't tell what Google's business model is? Has he ever even bothered to look at their financials? I mean, *****, how stupid can you be to run a multi-million dollar business? The bar must be /incredibly/ low in that market.
- w3ber, on 07/17/2009, -0/+17Yes.
- UncommonSense, on 07/17/2009, -2/+18GG.
- mathay5, on 07/17/2009, -2/+18This is stupid. Printed newspapers have had a steady decline in subscriptions. If newspaper websites go to a "subscribe only" format, someone will capitalize on individuals who don't want to pay. For example: Google pays the AP for its articles to be shown in GoogleNews. This is profitable and makes sense for all parties. Google has the funds to pay and the AP will invariably have more readers.
I mean, for example, the Tribune Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Los Angeles Times is owned by the Tribune Company. Their business model is obviously not working. I know there's the old mantra that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," well...the model is broken. Now is the time to fix it. I just don't understand the rigidness. It's a failure of imagination. - Rotzooi, on 07/17/2009, -0/+15Some Belgian papers demanded to be taken off Google News when their CEO "found out" that Google stole (his words) his content and put it on their site.
Lasted about a week, with such a decrease in traffic that their webmaster could have hosted free porn on the site and no one would have noticed. - allfatherblack, on 07/17/2009, -1/+14"Numerous providers are using the work of authors, publishers and broadcasters without paying for it. Over the long term, this threatens the production of high-quality content and the existence of independent journalism."
So, lemme see if I have this straight; independent journalists are threatening the existence of independent journalism?
"Sam Zell, whose Tribune Co. owns the Los Angeles Times, has said much the same thing, if only in more colorful terms. "If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?" he told a group of incredulous Stanford University students in 2007."
Sam Zell, on the other hand, clearly doesn't understand how the internet and/or Google work, so he should probably stop opening his mouth before he continues to embarrass himself. - IKORKYI, on 07/17/2009, -0/+12Well they should do what everyone else does when you're business can't support itself
Cut overhead. Don't pay for a building for people to come to work in just to use a computer all day (example Chicago Tribune - right smack in the middle of the mag mile - imagine the taxes and expenses while they get NOTHING for the exposure).
or
Increase value. Hire good writers and less bad writers that get more readers, or provide services people can't get anywhere else.
that's how capitalism works - TheSkunkMonkey, on 07/17/2009, -3/+14Let's not forget that Randolph Hearst, with his heavy investments in the forest and paper industries, ***** our country out of a very valuable resource to keep newspaper empire making him rich. He fought for prohibition on Hemp via Marijuana. Hemp makes cheaper paper that lasts longer.
As far as I am concerned, I have NO sympathy for newspapers. - DOCNM, on 07/17/2009, -1/+12it's sad, because I like reading newspaper. I just wish they were not run by complete morons, trying to destroy their own business.
- inactive, on 07/17/2009, -3/+14let them, the ***** tards. im sure im not the only one who visits the following news sites:
Digg
Google News
I RTFA for each one. THey are bitching for the sake of showing their ignorance. As said above so elequently, welcome to the internet, leave your old ways behind or die - rashawty, on 07/17/2009, -1/+11You make a decent point but i fear newspapers aren't really any better than cable news. Just like newspapers cable news companies are owned by large corporations that influence the content that gets published. And with computers as low as 300 dollars and internet for 40 dollars a month i don't think the people that can't afford them are the newspaper reading type.
- moltar2, on 07/17/2009, -0/+10That is true, yet some people do still go. And those that do are FREE visitors. If Google didn't list them at all, then they'd get zero visits.
If their images are not appealing enough, and the snippets are *****, then its their fault. Many smart website owners optimize their snippets to grab attention. Newspapers do that too in the offline world. Why do they think it's any different in online world?
The end of story is: don't want traffic, there is an easy way to turn it off with simple robots.txt, which exists as a de facto standard since early 90s. And the methods to stop indexing are explicitly listed on Google website in a very accessible place. - KarmaByte, on 07/17/2009, -1/+10Article says "It's unlikely that newspapers will call Google's bluff."
I thought it was Google who called the newspapers bluff!! - BottledViolence, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8Advertisers don't know how to properly value ads, content providers don't know how to monetize their services, Google knows how to make a search engine that dominates the market... but they're the ones screwing it up for everyone? No wonder they're scared, they have no idea what they're doing.
- diggduggDOOM, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8Except that I'm following a link to their website when I click on a story from Google News (unless you only count the headline and first few lines of the story). It's not Google's fault if I'm not persuaded to stick around and read other stories, click on ads, etc. The newspaper might not even have had me as a visitor without Google.
Newspapers don't have much room to complain, especially when they're all posting the same AP story. - allfatherblack, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8*****, agreed.
Now, if only someone had said something similar before we invested a trillion dollars into bailing employees of banks out and into their favorite expensive resorts. - SpruceCaboose, on 07/17/2009, -1/+9Sometimes I prefer a physical magazine in front of me than a computer. It would be nice to see the two co-exist, but that seems less and less likely, especially since people already look at me funny when I say I like to read.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/17/2009, -4/+12I know that newspapers seem to be on their way out, but why are all you idiots acting like they need to disappear tomorrow?
Newspapers, for all their sluggishness and lack of digitalness, helped this country grow into a strong democracy. They brought news to everyone. If we get rid of all the papers, the large chunk of poor people in our society, who don't have the money for a computer or the internet, will only have TV for news... and that scares me. - wipis, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8Very few if any. But people like to seem like the little guy regardless of whether or not they in fact are.
- dalittle, on 07/17/2009, -1/+8so true.
- Tarnum, on 07/17/2009, -1/+8RIP Polaroid, same story.
- UnpossibIe, on 07/17/2009, -0/+6The only reason I go to newspaper sites is because Google links me to them when I'm reading the morning news from Google News.
They're getting FREE advertising, and they still bitch. All of the traffic must be straining the servers of the ones complaining, and bitching is the solution. - algaeturd, on 07/18/2009, -3/+9And good luck peddling your ***** printed newspapers that feature celebrities instead of real news and outdated updates that came 24 hours before it hit the streets.
- allfatherblack, on 07/17/2009, -0/+6In my lay opinion, Google profits from the neutral and valiant goal of disseminating information. Since they are the only company doing it at such a scale and with such proficiency, we should let them and thank them for it (while watching them like a hawk, of course).
You need two things two live up to your potential as a human being; an education, and to a lesser extent, exercise. Google is providing the former in an abundance literally never before seen prior to its existence, and I dare say they are making the world a better place because of it.
Its affect has been far, far, far greater than any newspaper that has ever preceeded it, so to newspapers I say, "become relevant, or find another job. Perhaps at Google". - ObeseSnake, on 07/17/2009, -1/+7Zell the clock is ticking...change with the times or perish.
- nosecohn, on 07/17/2009, -0/+6So many entrenched companies with antiquated business models make an argument that goes something like this: "You're providing customers with a product that they really like and it's starting to affect our business. Stop it or we'll be really mad." Or sometimes it's, "Stop it or we'll lobby Congress to prevent those customers from getting what they really want."
The newspapers are doing this with Google. The telcos are doing it with Skype. The casinos are doing it with online gambling. And the list goes on.
So much for capitalism. - otbeverly, on 07/18/2009, -0/+5I would imagine that the publisher of the rag I work at has probably never spoken to the web development team.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is